Latest Judgments
Newly reported judgments from the Supreme Court of Pakistan, the High Courts and tribunals, added as they are processed — free, full text, updated daily. Judgments marked NEW were added in the most recent update. 232594 judgments in total.
- WAPDA AND ANOTHER vs MUHAMMAD RAMZAN AND 188 OTHERS1984 PLC 1051 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-10-30Read full judgment →
- WAPDA AND 2 OTHERS vs MUHAMMAD MALIK1984 PLC 1022 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-04-27Read full judgment →
- WAPDA AND 2 OTHERS vs Malik ABDUL GHAFFAR1984 PLC 982 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-04-24Read full judgment →
- WALYA vs Mst. ZAIBAN AND OTHERS1984 CLC 1385 · Lahore High Court · 1983-03-05Read full judgment →
- WALI MUHAMMAD vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 2813 · Sindh High Court · 1982-05-22Read full judgment →
- WALI MUHAMMAD vs THE COMMISSIONER, SIBI DIVISION AND ANOTHER1984 CLC 552 · Balochistan High Court · 1983-11-14Read full judgment →
- WALI MUHAMMAD vs SHAFI MUHAMMAD1984 CLC 2883 · Sindh High Court · 1984-04-21Read full judgment →
- WALI MUHAMMAD vs SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER, SARGODHA DIVISION, SARGOHA AND ANOTHER1984 SCMR 1574 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-06-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil appeal arises from a dispute over the allotment and confirmation of evacuee agricultural land between two competing claimants. The primary legal question addressed is whether a subsequent allotment and confirmation of land can override an earlier subsisting proposal for allotment in favor of another party under the relevant rehabilitation scheme. The Supreme Court held that a proposal is an essential statutory step toward allotment and confirmation, and in the presence of a prior subsisting proposal in favor of one party, the same land cannot be validly proposed and subsequently allotted to another without the earlier proposal being lawfully cancelled or withdrawn. The Court concluded that the allotment based on the subsequent proposal must yield to the earlier proposal. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, upholding the concurrent findings that favored the respondent's prior proposal and subsequent implementation.
Questions settled- Does a mere proposal for the allotment of land under the Rehabilitation and Settlement Scheme create a preferential right over a subsequent proposal?
- Can the same parcel of land be validly proposed and allotted to a second party while a prior proposal in favor of another party remains subsisting?
- What is the legal effect of a proposal under paragraph 64 of the Rehabilitation and Settlement Scheme in the process of land confirmation?
- WALI MUHAMMAD vs ME STATE1984 SCMR 540 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-01-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal arises from the judgment of the High Court maintaining the conviction and sentence of the appellant, Wali Muhammad, under section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code for the murder of Feroze Din. Leave to appeal was granted to examine whether the evidence against the appellant had been assessed in consonance with established principles. The prosecution case was supported by ocular testimony, immediate apprehension of the appellant at the spot with a blood-stained weapon, and corroborative police testimony. The core legal questions involved the assessment of ocular evidence, the effect of delay in recording the F.I.R., the presence of chance witnesses, and the significance of the absence of motive. The Supreme Court held that the appraisal of evidence by the High Court was correct, finding the ocular testimony reliable and the technical objections regarding the F.I.R. and absence of motive inconsequential in the presence of unimpeachable direct evidence. The appeal was dismissed, but the benefit of section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure was granted to the appellant.
Questions settled- Whether the absence of motive is inconsequential when unimpeachable ocular evidence is available against the accused?
- Does a delay in recording the first information report vitiate the trial when supported by substantive ocular evidence?
- Can the testimony of chance witnesses be relied upon when their presence at the scene is satisfactorily explained and they have no motive to falsely implicate the accused?
- WALI MUHAMMAD vs KHALIL AHMED AND OTHERS1984 SCMR 606 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-01-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by Wali Muhammad against the judgment of the High Court, which had acquitted three respondents (Khalil Ahmad, Bashir Ahmad, and Shadi Khan) of murder charges and altered the conviction of the fourth respondent (Niaz Ahmad) from section 302/34 to section 304, Part I, P. P. C., while maintaining his conviction under section 324 P. P. C. The trial court had previously convicted all four respondents for murder and causing injuries. The High Court excluded the ocular testimony of related eye-witnesses due to their relationship with the deceased and a delay in recording their statements under section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, relying instead on an independent witness and finding the incident to be the result of a sudden quarrel. The Supreme Court considered contentions that the High Court erred in rejecting related eye-witness testimony despite the complainant's injuries and prompt F.I.R., and that medical evidence contradicted the finding of a single assailant and a sudden quarrel. Finding the contentions require consideration, the Supreme Court granted leave to appeal and issued bailable warrants against the respondents.
Questions settled- Whether the High Court was justified in excluding the evidence of eye-witnesses merely on the ground of their relationship with the deceased?
- Does a delay in recording statements under section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 warrant the wholesale rejection of related eye-witness accounts without cogent explanation?
- Whether the evidence sufficiently established a sudden quarrel to justify altering a conviction from section 302 to section 304, Part I, of the Pakistan Penal Code?
- WALI MUHAMMAD vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER/APPELLATE AUTHRORITY,1984 CLC 2929 · Sindh High Court · 1984-02-02Read full judgment →
- WALI MUHAMMAD vs ABDUL KARIM1984 CLC 2554 · Sindh High Court · 1983-10-29Read full judgment →
- WALI MUHAMMAD and others vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 2514 · Lahore High Court · 1983-02-13Read full judgment →
- WALI MUHAMMAD and others vs SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER and others1984 SCMR 1338 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-02-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court dated 24-1-1982 concerning the cancellation and subsequent restoration of a land allotment. The core legal question involved the validity of an allotment claimed to be a forgery and the rights of vendees from subsequent allottees. The Supreme Court examined the record and noted that a finding of fact by the Settlement Commissioner established that the petitioners had tampered with the relevant revenue records and contrived to obtain a double allotment to create ambiguity, while the original allotment in favour of the predecessor-in-interest of the contesting respondents was valid. Furthermore, the court held that transfers in favour of the petitioners took place pending allotment and were hit by the doctrine of lis pendens, with proper notice having been given. Consequently, the Supreme Court held that the allotment could not be interfered with, and leave to appeal was refused. The key principle laid down is that where an allotment is reinstated based on a finding of fact that the contesting party manipulated records to create a double allotment, and transfers are affected by lis pendens during pending proceedings, such allotment remains protected and immune from interference.
Questions settled- Whether an allotment can be set aside on the ground of double allotment when the contesting party is found to have manipulated records to create ambiguity?
- Are transfers made pending allotment proceedings hit by the doctrine of lis pendens?
- Whether vendees from subsequent allottees with notice acquire a valid title when the underlying allotment is found to be a result of record tampering?
- WALI KHAN AND 3 OTHERS vs MESSRS UNION TEXAS PAKISTAN INC1984 PLC 580 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1984-01-24Read full judgment →
- WALAYAT AND ANOTHER vs THE STATE1984 SCMR 530 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-10-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter originated as a petition for leave to appeal against an order of the Lahore High Court, which had dismissed the bail applications of the petitioners, Walayat and Abbas, in a case involving charges under Section 302/149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The Supreme Court converted the petition into an appeal for final disposal. The core legal question was whether the petitioners were entitled to the same relief of bail as a co-accused, Riaz, who had previously been granted bail by the High Court. Upon review, the Supreme Court found that the case of petitioner Abbas was analogous to that of Riaz, as both were alleged to have inflicted simple injuries with a hatchet. Regarding petitioner Walayat, the Court examined the post-mortem report and determined that the alleged hammer blow to the ankle was not supported by medical evidence, as no such injury was found on the deceased. Consequently, the Court held that both petitioners were entitled to bail on the principle of consistency and lack of incriminating medical evidence, allowing the appeal and granting bail accordingly.
Questions settled- Is an accused entitled to bail if their case is similar to a co-accused who has already been granted bail?
- Does the absence of medical evidence supporting an alleged injury entitle an accused to bail?
- Can the Supreme Court convert a petition for leave to appeal into an appeal for final disposal?
- WAL1 MUHAMMAD vs PAKISTAN and others1984 SCMR 1563 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-02-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter originated as a Constitutional Petition challenging the status of the Karachi Timber Merchants Group under the Trade Organisations Ordinance, 1961. The core legal question was whether the Group qualified as a trade organisation under Section 2(12) of the Ordinance, thereby necessitating mandatory licensing and registration. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, observing that the High Court’s determination—that the Group failed to meet the statutory criteria—appeared prima facie incorrect upon review of the Group's Memorandum and Articles of Association. The Court indicated that an association formed to represent specific trades in a specific area, which prohibits dividend payments and is capable of incorporation as a limited company, satisfies the statutory definition of a trade organisation. Consequently, the Court determined that the legal interpretation of the Ordinance regarding the Group's status was a matter of general public importance requiring further examination by the appellate court.
Questions settled- Does an association formed to represent specific trades in a specific area qualify as a trade organisation under the Trade Organisations Ordinance, 1961?
- What are the criteria for an association to be classified as a trade organisation under Section 2(12) of the Trade Organisations Ordinance, 1961?
- Is an association that prohibits the payment of dividends to its members and is capable of being formed as a limited company eligible for registration under the Trade Organisations Ordinance, 1961?
- WAJA MUHAMMD HUSSAIN vs Mir MUHAMMAD HA MZA AND 3 OTHERS1984 SCMR 1002 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-04-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal concerns a dispute over the election to the Union Council Khudabadan, District Panjgur, Baluchistan. The respondent's nomination paper was initially rejected by the Returning Officer due to a prior conviction. On appeal, the Commissioner, Makran Division, upheld the disqualification, relying on new allegations made orally by the Deputy Commissioner that the respondent continued to instigate students, despite acknowledging the respondent had received a pardon. The High Court set aside the Commissioner's order, finding it violated the principles of natural justice because the respondent was not given an opportunity to refute these new allegations. The core legal question was whether the High Court, upon finding a violation of natural justice, should have merely set aside the order or directed a rehearing. The Supreme Court held that while the High Court correctly identified the violation of natural justice, it erred by not ordering a rehearing. The Court set aside the High Court's order and directed the Commissioner to rehear the appeal, ensuring the respondent is afforded a reasonable opportunity to defend against the allegations.
Questions settled- Does an appellate authority violate the principles of natural justice by relying on new allegations against a candidate without providing them an opportunity to refute such allegations?
- When a court finds an administrative order void for violating natural justice, is the appropriate remedy to set aside the order entirely or to direct a rehearing?
- Does a pardon for a criminal conviction remove the disqualification stigma for the purpose of contesting local government elections?
- WAHIDUDDIN vs ABID HUSSAIN and another1984 CLC 2932 · Sindh High Court · 1984-01-21Read full judgment →
- WAHID BUX vs ELECTION AUTHORITY, PROVINCE OF SIND THROUGH DEPUTY1984 CLC 1294 · Sindh High Court · 1983-11-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
A constitutional petition was filed before the High Court of Sindh challenging an order of the Returning Officer (Respondent No. 2), who had invalidated all ballot papers cast in an election for a Union Council on the ground that, although stamped with the official mark, they lacked the Presiding Officer's initials as required by administrative instructions in the election manual. The respondents raised a preliminary objection regarding maintainability, contending that an election petition before the Election Tribunal was the sole adequate remedy.
The High Court held that while writ jurisdiction in election matters is exercised sparingly, a writ petition is maintainable where no disputed factual questions exist and the issue turns on statutory interpretation or legal principles. On the merits, interpreting Rules 35 and 40 of the Sind Local Council (Election) Rules 1979, the Court ruled that the law explicitly mandated rejection only for lack of an official mark, not for absence of the Presiding Officer's initial. Administrative instructions cannot override or expand statutory grounds of invalidity. Re-counting was accordingly ordered.
Questions settled- Whether a writ petition under constitutional jurisdiction is maintainable in election matters where no disputed questions of fact are involved and the issue concerns pure interpretation of election rules?
- Whether administrative instructions issued for election guidance can alter or override statutory rules regarding the rejection of ballot papers?
- Does the absence of the Presiding Officer's initial on a ballot paper render it invalid under Rules 35 and 40 of the Sind Local Council (Election) Rules 1979 when it bears the official mark?
- WAHID BAKHSH and others vs THE STATE1984 MLD 1549 · Lahore High Court · 1984-04-10Read full judgment →
- WAHID BAKHSH alias SOOMAR vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 3208 · Sindh High Court · 1982-08-17Read full judgment →
- WAHEED SHAH AND OTHERS vs Haji SHAHZADA AND OTHERS1984 SCMR 12 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-10-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition concerning a dispute over the title of property in suit, wherein the petitioners claimed ownership either through adverse possession or as ancestral property. The core legal question revolved around whether the document Exh. 1/2 dated 1st October, 1967, which lacked specific property boundaries, could validly be held to refer to the suit land and support the concurrent findings of the lower courts against the petitioners. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the absence of boundaries in the document was not fatal, as the lack of settlement in the area and corroborating oral testimony established that the document referred to the land in dispute. The petition was accordingly dismissed, affirming the concurrent findings of the lower courts. The key principle laid down is that a lacuna in the description of property within a document can be cured by oral testimony and surrounding circumstances where no official settlement exists in the area.
Questions settled- Whether the absence of boundaries in a document regarding property is fatal to its applicability when supported by oral testimony?
- Can concurrent findings of lower courts regarding property title be disturbed when the deficiency in property description is made good by oral evidence?
- WADERO FATEH ALI vs RAZIKDINO AND 3 OTHERS1984 CLC 3126 · Sindh High Court · 1984-03-13Read full judgment →
- W.P.I.D.C. through Sugar Mills, Bannu vs Mst. NASREEN KHAN and others1984 SCMR 1440 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns four appeals arising from a judgment of the Peshawar High Court regarding compensation for land acquired for an agricultural farm and a sugar mill. The core legal questions involved the lawfulness of granting compound interest under the West Pakistan (Amendment) Act III of 1969 for acquisitions occurring prior to the Act, the justification for increasing compensation rates to Rs. 300 per Kanal for sugar mill land, and the legality of awarding departmental charges. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals. Regarding interest, the Court noted the issue was settled by prior precedent (Nishat Sarhad Textile Mills v. Sher Ahmad Khan). Regarding compensation, the Court held that the High Court’s determination of market value was based on concrete evidence of sales and contained no legal infirmity. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that compensation for the agricultural farm land was properly limited to the amount claimed by the respondents, as they had restricted their claim due to court-fee constraints. The appeals were dismissed as lacking merit, upholding the High Court's findings on valuation.
Questions settled- Can a court award compensation exceeding the amount specifically claimed by the parties in their pleadings?
- Is the determination of market value by the High Court based on evidence of sales subject to interference if no legal infirmity is shown?
- Does the West Pakistan (Amendment) Act III of 1969 apply to land acquisition proceedings initiated before its enactment?
- W APDA THROUGH SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, GUIRANWALA vs RIASAT ALI1984 PLC 1422 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-04-24Read full judgment →
- VUSUF AND 6 OTHERS vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 684 · Lahore High Court · 1983-04-12Read full judgment →
- VICECHANCELLOR, UNIVERSITY OF THE PUNJAB, LAHORE AND OTHERS vs MUHAMMAD ZAHUR NASIR1984 SCMR 1585 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-04-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The respondent, a student, was disqualified for three years by the University of the Punjab for examination malpractice involving forged result entries. The respondent challenged this disqualification in the Lahore High Court, which set aside the order, holding that the Disciplinary Committee violated the principles of natural justice by failing to disclose the names of University staff involved in the forgery, thereby denying the respondent a fair opportunity to defend himself. The University filed a petition for leave to appeal, contending that the High Court’s reliance on University of Dacca v. Zakir Ahmad was misplaced in light of subsequent jurisprudence. The petitioners argued that the respondent’s status as the beneficiary of tampered records raised a presumption of guilt, sufficient for domestic disciplinary proceedings, and that such parental authority inquiries should not be reviewed under the same strict norms as judicial proceedings. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to consider whether the principles of natural justice were satisfied and whether the High Court’s standard of judicial review for domestic disciplinary findings was appropriate.
Questions settled- Does the failure of a university disciplinary committee to disclose the names of staff involved in examination forgery to the accused student violate the principles of natural justice?
- Is a presumption of guilt arising from a student being the beneficiary of tampered examination records sufficient to sustain disciplinary action?
- To what extent should a judicial forum review the findings of a university disciplinary committee acting as a parental authority?
- VICE-PRESIDENT, UNITED BANK LTD.., LAHORE AND 2 ANOTHER vs MAQSOOD1984 PLC 1506 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
- VICE-PRESIDENT, NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN vs ASHIQ HUSSAIN BHATTI ,..1984 PLC 886 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1983-06-07Read full judgment →
- VICE-PRESIDENT, MUSLIM COMMERCIAL BANK LTD., SARGODHA AND ANOTHER1984 PLC 1502 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
- UTILITY STORES CORPORATION OF PAKISTAN vs GULZAR AHM AD , .1984 PLC 1168 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-05-18Read full judgment →
- UTILITY STORES CORPORATION OF PAKISTAN LTD. vs ABDUL AZIZ1984 PLC 434 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1984-02-14Read full judgment →
- UTILITY STORES CORPORATION OF PAKISTAN LTD. THROUGH DIVISIONAL1984 PLC 893 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
- USMAN vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 1797 · Sindh High Court · 1982-06-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal and murder reference arose from a judgment of the Sessions Judge, Sanghar, convicting the appellant under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of Mst. Gullan and sentencing him to death. The core legal questions involved the reliability of eyewitness testimony, the voluntariness of a judicial confession, the effect of delay in dispatching recovered items to the Chemical Examiner, the legality of an arrest by a private person under Section 59 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and the quantum of sentence in light of mitigating circumstances and provocation. The Sindh High Court held that the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt through consistent eyewitness accounts, a voluntary judicial confession, and corroborated recoveries, and that private arrest based on immediate hue and cry is lawful under Section 59. However, considering the appellant's young age and the element of provocation arising from a domestic dispute, the court substituted the death sentence with life imprisonment, rejecting the reference for confirmation.
Questions settled- Whether a private person is legally authorized under Section 59 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to arrest a suspect upon hearing an immediate outcry and pursuit of the offender?
- Does a delay in the dispatch of recovered blood-stained articles to the Chemical Examiner render the Chemical Analyser's Report inadmissible or fatal to the prosecution case?
- Whether the existence of a prior illicit relationship and sudden refusal by the deceased constitutes grave and sudden provocation sufficient to bring a murder case within Exception I to Section 300 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Whether a judicial confession recorded within twenty-four hours of apprehension is per se involuntary?
- USMAN vs THE STATE and another1984 P Cr. L J 2908 · Sindh High Court · 1983-12-03Read full judgment →
- USMAN vs LABOUR APPELLATE TRIBUNAL and another1984 CLC 2782 · Sindh High Court · 1984-03-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 challenged an order passed by the Sind Labour Appellate Tribunal arising from a service dispute. The petitioner, employed by Karachi Port Trust, was suspended and charge-sheeted for misconduct, leading to a domestic enquiry and subsequent reduction in rank. The core legal question was whether a domestic enquiry conducted by examining the accused employee first before producing evidence in support of the charges violates the principles of natural justice and mandatory service rules. The Sindh High Court held that conducting a domestic enquiry by examining the accused in the first instance without first adducing evidence by the employer and denying the right to cross-examine constitutes a grave infirmity and a violation of both the principles of natural justice and sub-rule (3) of rule 6-A of the K.P.T. Officers and Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1969. The Court laid down that in domestic enquiries, the burden of proof rests on the employer to substantiate allegations by producing evidence first, allowing the employee to cross-examine, and providing adequate opportunity to defend.
Questions settled- Does examining an accused employee at the very commencement of a domestic enquiry violate the principles of natural justice?
- Whether an order of reduction in rank based on a void domestic enquiry report is sustainable in law?
- What is the procedure required for conducting a valid domestic enquiry under labour laws?
- Can the High Court interfere with findings of fact in writ jurisdiction when proceedings are in violation of law or established principles?
- USMAN TEXTILE MILLS LTD. vs NASIBZADA1984 PLC 838 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1983-10-17Read full judgment →
- USMAN AHMAD ANSARI vs Messrs UNION STEEL MILLS Ltd.--Defendant1984 MLD 983 · Sindh High Court · 1984-11-05Read full judgment →
- USMA N vs THE STATE and another1984 P Cr. L J 2906 · Sindh High Court · 1983-12-03Read full judgment →
- URIS and anothers vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 2229 · Sindh High Court · 1983-11-26Read full judgment →
- UNIVERSAL OIL & VEGETABLE GHEE MILLS LTD. vs JAFFAR KHAN1984 PLC 424 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-12-11Read full judgment →
- UNITED UNION OF PAKISTAN RAILWAYS WORKERS vs NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL1984 PLC 305 · Lahore High Court · 1984-01-10Read full judgment →
- UNITED GLASS MARBLES INDUSTRIES vs GHULAM HUSSAIN RAJWANY1984 MLD 292 · Sindh High Court · 1984-01-08Read full judgment →
- UNITED BANK LTD., SUKKUR vs MUNIR AHMAD AND 2 OTHERS1984 PLC 276 · Sindh High Court · 1983-11-07Read full judgment →
- UNITED BANK LTD., LAHORE vs ALAM ZEB1984 PLC 511 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1984-01-28Read full judgment →
- UNITED BANK LTD., FAISALABAD vs MUHAMMAD VAKIL1984 PLC 1309 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1984-03-09Read full judgment →
- UNITED BANK LTD. vs MUNIR AKHTAR1984 PLC 983 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-03-23Read full judgment →
- UNITED BANK LTD. vs MUMTAZ HUSSAIN RIZVI1984 PLC 684 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1984-02-28Read full judgment →
- UNITED BANK LTD. vs MUHAMMAD AFTAB ARJUMAND1984 PLC 676 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-11-20Read full judgment →
- UNITED BANK LTD. vs Khawaja MAJID WASEEM1984 PLC 1718 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-05-29Read full judgment →
- UNITED BANK LTD. vs GHIAS MOHY-UD-DIN BUTT AND ANOTHER /1984 PLC 1044 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-02-07Read full judgment →
- UNITED BANK LTD. AND ANOTHER vs MUHAMMAD ALI AND 2 OTHERS ,1984P L C 1 · Lahore High Court · 1983-05-21Read full judgment →
- UNITED BANK LIMITED, ZONAL OFFICE, RAWALPINDITHROUGH ITS VICE-1984 PLC 1404 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
- UMRAO ALI through his legal heirs and 2 others vs NOOR ELAHEE1984 SCMR 1548 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-10-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against an order of the High Court, which had dismissed a Letters Patent Appeal as time-barred. The core legal question was whether a delay in filing an appeal, caused by a counsel’s erroneous legal advice regarding the proper forum for challenging a Single Judge’s order, constitutes sufficient grounds for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, affirming that a counsel's mistaken impression or wrong legal advice does not automatically provide a valid basis for condoning delay. The Court held that the discretion exercised by the High Court in refusing to condone the delay was not erroneous, as the petitioners failed to provide a cogent explanation for how the counsel was misled. The key principle laid down is that while the Supreme Court may occasionally entertain direct petitions against a Single Judge's order, doing so is discouraged as it undermines the High Court's appellate jurisdiction under the Letters Patent, and a mere assertion of a bona fide mistake by counsel is insufficient to excuse procedural delays.
Questions settled- Does a counsel's erroneous legal advice regarding the proper appellate forum constitute sufficient ground for condonation of delay under the Limitation Act?
- Can a party bypass the Letters Patent Appeal jurisdiction of the High Court by filing a direct petition for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court against a Single Judge's order?
- Is the discretion exercised by a High Court in refusing to condone a delay based on a counsel's mistake subject to interference if no cogent basis for the mistake is provided?
- UMER DIN AND ANOTHER vs MUHAMMAD HANIF AND ANOTHER1984 SCMR 559 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-02-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition challenging the dismissal of an objection petition filed in execution proceedings concerning a decree for specific performance of an agreement to sell a house. The house had been transferred to Mst. Rafiqan by the Settlement Department against claims belonging to her and her two sons, Umer Din and Hakeem-ud-Din (the petitioners). After the failure of successive appeals and petitions up to the Supreme Court by Mst. Rafiqan, the decree-holder sought execution, prompting the petitioners to file an objection petition. The trial court, additional district judge, and High Court successively dismissed the objection and subsequent challenges. The core legal question concerned whether the petitioners could successfully obstruct the execution of the final decree. The Supreme Court held that the objection petition was entirely frivolous and filed by the sons merely to prolong litigation and retain possession of the disputed property. The petition was accordingly dismissed, affirming that frivolous objections in execution proceedings designed to delay execution will not be entertained.
Questions settled- Whether an objection petition filed by family members in execution proceedings can be maintained to obstruct the execution of a final decree for specific performance?
- Does the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of lower courts dismissing a frivolous objection petition in execution proceedings?
- UMER AHAD alias MUHAMMAD RAFIQUE vs SARFRAZ KHAN AND ANOTHER1984 SCMR 1033(2) · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-04-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner filed a miscellaneous petition seeking the restoration of his dismissed Leave Petition, which had been dismissed for non-appearance. Finding the petitioner's explanation satisfactory, the Supreme Court restored the petition and proceeded to hear it on merits. On merits, the petitioner challenged the High Court's finding regarding his age, determined on the basis of a Medical Board report rather than a municipal birth certificate, in a bail cancellation matter relating to a murder case. The Supreme Court held that observations made by the High Court in a bail matter regarding the accused's age are merely tentative in nature and do not prejudice the trial. The Court ruled that it remains open to the petitioner to raise the question of his age and the jurisdiction of the court before the trial court. Consequently, the petition for leave to appeal was dismissed with the said observation.
Questions settled- Can a leave petition dismissed for non-appearance be restored upon the petitioner's explanation?
- Are observations regarding the age of an accused made in a bail matter tentative in nature?
- Is an accused entitled to raise the question of his age and trial court jurisdiction before the trial court despite prior observations by the High Court in bail proceedings?
- UMARDRAZ vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 645 · Sindh High Court · 1983-12-10Read full judgment →
- UMAR HAYAT vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 669 · Lahore High Court · 1981-11-22Read full judgment →
- UMAR DIN vs KARACHI METROPOLITAN CORPORATION1984 PLC 142 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · -Read full judgment →
- UMAR DIN and others vs CHIEF SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER (MBR), LAHORE1984 SCMR 1480 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-02-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a dispute over the entitlement to specific agricultural land previously allotted to a displaced person, Abdul Azim Khan. The core legal question was whether an order dated 13th March 1960, which cancelled a portion of the original allotment, was genuine or forged/ante-dated. If genuine, the land reverted to the Compensation Pool and was validly allotted to the respondents; if forged, the land would have been subject to surrender under the Scrutiny of Claims (Evacuee Property) Regulation (MLR No. 89) and available to the petitioners as sitting tenants. The Rehabilitation and Settlement Commissioner, following an inquiry, determined the 1960 order was genuine, validating the respondents' allotment. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, affirming that the determination of the genuineness of a document is a factual inquiry that cannot be re-examined by the High Court in its writ jurisdiction. The principle laid down is that the High Court, in the exercise of its constitutional writ jurisdiction, will not conduct factual inquiries to determine the authenticity of disputed documents, particularly when such findings have been established by the competent departmental authorities.
Questions settled- Can the High Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction conduct a factual inquiry to determine the genuineness of an order passed by a revenue authority?
- Does land cancelled from an original allotment due to inferior quality revert to the Compensation Pool?
- What is the legal status of land surrendered under the Scrutiny of Claims (Evacuee Property) Regulation (MLR No. 89)?
- UMAR AND ANOTHER vs THE SATE1984 P Cr. L J 310 · Sindh High Court · 1983-08-31Read full judgment →
- ULFAT BAIG vs PUNJAB ROAD TRANSPORT BOARD1984 PLC 1193 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1984-01-16Read full judgment →
- TUFAIL MUHAMMAD vs SECRETARY-GENERAL, MINISTRY OF DEFENCE, GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN, AVIATION DIVISION1984 PLC (C. S.) 497 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1984-01-28Read full judgment →
- TUFAIL MUHAMMAD AND 3 OTHERS vs KARACHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY1984 CLC 1716 · Sindh High Court · 1983-04-27Read full judgment →
- TUFAIL MASEEH vs THE STATE1980 P Cr. L J 2623 · Lahore High Court · 1982-10-31Read full judgment →
- TUFAIL BAIG and anothers vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 2194 · Lahore High Court · 1983-06-17Read full judgment →
- TRUSTEES OF THE ES'1'ATE OF LATE Mar. SHERIN BAI C. DUBASH vs Tm1984 PTD 202 · Sindh High Court · 1983-12-22Read full judgment →
- TRUSTEES OF PORT OF KARACHI vs Haji GUL HASSAN AND 4 OTHERS1984 CLC 1721 · Sindh High Court · 1983-11-11Read full judgment →
- TRADAX OCEAN TRANSPORTATION S. A. AND 2 OTHERS vs THE MUSLIM1984 SCMR 360 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-12-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
These petitions arose from a common judgment of the Sind High Court regarding the interim custody and disposal of a cargo of soyabean oil on board the vessel M. V. Sonja, which was detained following a recovery suit filed by a bank against a company and its directors. The petitioners, claiming to be unpaid sellers who had exercised a right of stoppage in transit, challenged the High Court's order directing the sale of a portion of the cargo pending the adjudication of their claims. The core legal question was whether the High Court was justified in ordering the sale of a perishable commodity before the final determination of the intervenors' ownership claims. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the High Court acted within its lawful jurisdiction under the relevant procedural rules to order the sale of perishable goods to prevent loss and price escalation, while fully safeguarding the sale proceeds for the rightful claimants. The Court established that an appellate court or trial court possesses adequate powers to order the interim sale of perishable goods pending suit adjudication, provided the interests of rival claimants to the sale proceeds are preserved.
Questions settled- Whether a court has the power to order the interim sale of perishable goods pending the adjudication of rival ownership claims?
- Does an unpaid seller's right of stoppage in transit preclude the court from ordering the sale of goods subject to speedy and natural decay?
- Can a high court pass orders affecting intervenors who were given an opportunity to be heard even if not formally impleaded as parties in the appeal?
- TOWN COMMITTEE.PITHORO and anothers vs UNION COUNCIL ARARO and 31984 CLC 2822 · Sindh High Court · 1983-03-29Read full judgment →
- TOTI GUL KHAN vs THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, HYDERABAD AND 2 OTHERS1984 CLC 2432 · Sindh High Court · 1984-01-17Read full judgment →
- TNE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRALZONE), KARACHI vs MESSRS1984 PTD 166 · Sindh High Court · 1983-11-08Read full judgment →
- TMDIN vs THE STATE1984 SCMR 506 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-12-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal challenged a Federal Shariat Court judgment that reversed an acquittal and convicted the appellant for rape under the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979 and murder under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal questions concerned the competence of a trial court to try offences under both special and general laws in a single transaction, the legality of an appellate court further examining an accused under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and the criteria for interfering with an acquittal. The Supreme Court held that the trial court was competent to try both offences together under Section 235 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 and the Offence of Zina Ordinance. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that an appellate court may re-examine an accused to ensure justice and is empowered to set aside an acquittal where the trial court’s reasoning is speculative, ignores relevant evidence, or results in a miscarriage of justice. The appeal was dismissed, upholding the conviction.
Questions settled- Can a trial court simultaneously try offences under the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979 and the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 if committed in the same transaction?
- Is an appellate court empowered to further examine an accused under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Under what circumstances is an appellate court justified in setting aside an order of acquittal?
- TM ALI KHAN vs GOVERNMENT OF N.W. F. P. AND 3 OTHERS1984 CLC 486 · Peshawar High Court · 1983-08-27Read full judgment →
- TILA MUHAMMAD vs MAQSOOD AND OTHERS1984 CLC 984 · Peshawar High Court · 1984-01-24Read full judgment →
- THOOHAR vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 1766 · Sindh High Court · 1983-04-09Read full judgment →
- THE WORKS GENERAL MANAGER, I. C. I. PAKISTAN MANUFACTURERS LTD., AND ANOTHER vs MUHAMMAD WALAYAT1984 PLC 1017 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
- THE WEST PAKISTAN AGRICULTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION AND 21984 PLD Karachi 190 · Sindh High Court · 1983-12-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil appeal arose from a trial court judgment decreeing a recovery suit in favor of the respondent. The appellants filed the appeal along with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of a significant delay. The core legal questions involved whether the appellants had shown sufficient cause for the delay by explaining the delay of each and every day, and whether government-owned organizations or departments are entitled to preferential treatment under the law of limitation. The Sindh High Court held that the appellants failed to act with reasonable diligence and did not provide a satisfactory explanation for the prolonged departmental inaction, and reaffirmed that the government and state organizations cannot claim different standards of limitation compared to ordinary litigants. The court established that Section 5 of the Limitation Act does not confer special considerations or discriminatory leniency to government departments, which must demonstrate promptness and explain every day of delay like any other litigant.
Questions settled- Whether the government or state-owned organizations can claim a different standard or preferential treatment under the law of limitation compared to ordinary citizens?
- Does a party seeking condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act have to explain the delay of each and every day?
- Whether an arbitration clause requiring reference to an engineer before filing a suit bars the jurisdiction of the civil court?
- What constitutes sufficient cause for the exercise of judicial discretion in condoning delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act?
- THE SUPERINTENDENT, WATCH AND WARD, PAKISTAN RAILWAYS, LAHORE vs MANZOOR HUSSAIN1984 PLC 632 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
- THE STATE vs SHAFQAT ALI CHATHA and 2 others1984 MLD 1482 · Lahore High Court · 1975-01-27Read full judgment →
- THE STATE vs SARWAR KHAN AND OTHERS1984 PLD Supreme Court 428 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-04-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The State sought leave to appeal against the judgment of the Peshawar High Court, which declined to interfere with an order of acquittal recorded under Section 249-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 in a case registered under Sections 427 and 447 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The Supreme Court examined whether the trial court rightly acquitted the respondents due to the failure of the prosecution to produce evidence after numerous adjournments. The Supreme Court observed that while the trial court failed to properly follow the procedural prerequisites of Section 249-A, including hearing the prosecutor and forming a formal opinion that the charge was groundless or that there was no probability of conviction, leave to appeal should still be refused because the case involved trivial property damage falling under the general exception of Section 95 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The Court laid down guidelines regarding the enforcement of witness attendance through coercive measures, the necessity of examining reasons for non-service of summons, and the mandatory requirement of affording an opportunity of hearing to the prosecutor or complainant before passing an acquittal order under Section 249-A.
Questions settled- What are the procedural requirements for recording an order of acquittal under Section 249-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Can an appellate court interfere with an acquittal order based on the triviality of the offence under Section 95 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- What steps must a trial court take when prosecution witnesses fail to appear in response to summons?
- Is it mandatory to afford an opportunity of hearing to the prosecutor or complainant before recording an acquittal under Section 249-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- THE STATE vs SAEED A HMED1984 P Cr. L J 2171 · Sindh High Court · 1983-09-03Read full judgment →
- THE STATE vs Rana SALIM AKHTAR D.S.P., and others1984 P Cr. L J 2578 · Lahore High Court · 1983-03-29Read full judgment →
- THE STATE vs RAFIQUE AHMED BHATTI1984 P Cr. L J 583 · Lahore High Court · 1983-12-20Read full judgment →
- THE STATE vs NOOR MUHAM MAD1984 P Cr. L J 1946 · Lahore High Court · 1984-03-26Read full judgment →
- THE STATE vs NAJIBUL HASSAN1984 P Cr. L J 3012 · Sindh High Court · 1984-02-15Read full judgment →
- THE STATE vs MUSA AND 4 OTHERS1984 PLD Azad J & K 30 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1984-02-15Read full judgment →
- THE STATE vs MUMTAZ AHMAD AND OTHERS1984 P Cr. L J 1879 · Lahore High Court · 1983-05-06Read full judgment →
- THE STATE vs MUHAMMAD KHAN1984 P Cr. L J 2852 · Sindh High Court · 1983-10-08Read full judgment →
- THE STATE vs MUHAMMAD IQBAL1984 P Cr. L J 257 · Peshawar High Court · 1983-11-05Read full judgment →
- The State vs Muhammad HanifPTCL 1984 (CL) 245 · Sindh High Court · 1983-09-27Read full judgment →
- THE STATE vs MU H AMMAD ASH RAF and another1984 P Cr. L J 2164 · Lahore High Court · 1983-07-01Read full judgment →
- THE STATE vs MOKHA and others1984 MLD 1370 · Lahore High Court · 1978-06-20Read full judgment →
- THE STATE vs KHALID JAM IL AND ANOTHER1984 P Cr. L J 822 · Sindh High Court · 1983-09-04Read full judgment →
- THE STATE vs KHA IR HUSSAIN1984 P Cr. L J 1001 · Sindh High Court · 1981-12-15Read full judgment →
- THE STATE vs GUL MUHAMMAD AND OTHERS1984 P Cr. L J 934 · Lahore High Court · 1983-08-06Read full judgment →
- THE STATE vs GHULAM MUHAMMAD AND 2 OTHERS Accused1984 P Cr. L J 1228 · Balochistan High Court · 1983-03-24Read full judgment →
- THE STATE vs ETABAR KHAN1984 P Cr. L J 1685 · Lahore High Court · 1984-04-07Read full judgment →
- THE STATE vs BAGO1984 P Cr. L J 721 · Sindh High Court · 1983-09-25Read full judgment →